An excellent Washington Post piece by John Pomfret outlines the ways in which China’s recent discovery of global influence is manifesting itself with increasing displays of arrogance confidence:

U.S. officials first began noticing the new Chinese attitude last year. Anecdotes range from the political to the personal.

At the World Economic Forum last year, Premier Wen Jiabao lambasted the United States for its economic mismanagement. A few weeks later, China’s central bank questioned whether the dollar could continue to play its role as the international reserve currency.

And in another vignette, confirmed by several sources, a senior U.S. official involved in the economy hosted his Chinese counterpart, who then made a series of disparaging remarks about the bureau that the American ran. Later that night, the two were to dine at the American’s house. The Chinese representatives called ahead, asking what was for dinner. They were informed that it was fish. “The director doesn’t eat fish,” one of them told his American interlocutor. “He wants steak. He says fish makes you weak.” The menu was changed.

The remainder of the article is equally illuminating. It is also a disturbing reminder of how the CCP can be expected behave as it makes itself comfortable at the big boy’s table.

Update

Big hat tip to Justrecently for pointing the way to an article in The Economist entitled Facing up to China .

A snippet to ponder:

From its perceived position of growing economic strength, China has been throwing its weight around. It played a central and largely unhelpful role at the climate-change talks in Copenhagen; it looks as if it will wreck a big-power consensus over Iran’s nuclear programme; it has picked fights in territorial disputes with India, Japan and Vietnam. At gatherings of all sorts, Chinese officials now want to have their say, and expect to be heeded.

When the liberally-inclined Economist starts to see the warning signs, it’s time for everyone to wake up to the new reality.

http://www.istockphoto.com/

Newsweek reports that Beijing has come to a self-evident realisation that the rest of us have been aware of for years (and Tibetans since 1949): you can’t win the hearts and minds of an entire and distinct ethnicity by bending them to your will with a ‘take our candy or get punished’ policy.

The CCP’s proposed final solution to the problem?

Send more candy. (credibility warning: that’s a Chinese government propaganda website).

Barmé begins with a look back on China’s ‘year of anniversaries’ before contemplating the Middle Kingdom’s future path now that she finds herself in a position of prosperity and global influence, particularly in the context of the commitments made to the Chinese people when the present CCP dynasty first came to power. Hence the title of the piece. Here’s a small excerpt:

If China is to be a responsible member of the international community, and for its peoples to be a harmonious part of an equitable world order, the citizens of the People’s Republic not only need to be informed and to inform of their views, but be free to debate, disagree and reach social and political consensus in a way that is not determined behind closed doors, or predominantly by a secretive political system with complex corporate connections in which family connections, personal wealth and power form the only basis for true legitimacy.

In the 1940s a number of Chinese writers, reporters and thinkers were wary of the Communist Party’s promises to bring democracy and freedom to the country. In 1956, the noted publisher and writer Chu Anping warned of the rise of what he dubbed a ‘Party Empire’ (dang tianxia ). Like so many others who spoke out as part of a movement that the Party launched so it could ‘correct its mistakes’, Chu was soon purged for his outspokenness. Eventually, he disappeared under mysterious circumstances in 1966. To this day the expression ‘Party Empire’ resonates powerfully among those who are fearful of the swagger and style of a regnant Communist Party that along with a newfound economic clout cleaves to its backward-looking autocratic habits. Some now discuss the baleful consequences that this kind of ‘Chinese story’ could have on a global scale.

This excerpt certainly doesn’t do justice to the essay; nor does it give an adequate sense of the writers direction. It does, however, speak to one of my principle concerns: how are the current actions of a resentful, paranoid, and self-centred authoritarian regime compatible with the freedoms and opportunities promised the Chinese people more than half a century ago? And how does the wielding of power and influence by the CCP improve the chances of a planet in (possibly terminal) decline?

It’s a thoroughly researched and informative article, and reading the whole thing is strongly urged.

http://stanfordreview.org/

Courtesy of the ever-insightful James Fallows, here is one of several money quotes from Clinton’s ‘Internet Freedom’ speech:

“On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress, but the United States does.”

Just in case anyone was in any doubt, China under CCP leadership are most definitely on the wrong side of this struggle for freedom, although Jackie Chan might disagree.

The Obama administration reached out to China on a range of issues – internet freedom among them – in an effort to shape a relationship of 21st century cooperation and engagement. This was apparently interpreted by Beijing as a sign of American weakness. As a consequence, the Chinese government have begun to strut with a troubling degree of arrogance in global affairs, and increased repression at home.

Most analysts predicted a bumpy immediate future for Sino-US ties. It might be bumpier than expected, especially if Beijing doesn’t learn to recognise a genuine American president when they meet one.

For now, a very one-sided honeymoon is over and the gloves are off.

So what next?

I would predict the usual nationalism-invoking rhetoric and belligerent posturing from Beijing, and a firmer stance from the Obama administration towards China that doesn’t include side-stepping a cordial invitation extended to the Dalai Lama.

Update

A very CCP response: ‘US guilty of internet imperialism’

It seems the Chinese government are really fine-tuning their sense of irony.

Quite frankly, it’s about time.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Google in China might be approaching their tolerance threshold. Or are they developing a conscience?  Either way, the search engine giant is seriously considering pulling the plug after (entirely predictably) “highly sophisticated and targeted attacks on our corporate infrastructure originating from China.” These espionage activities by Google’s Chinese hosts were aimed specifically at so-called ‘enemies of the state’ in China; anywhere else they’re considered decent citizens looking out for the rights of others. Here’s a bit more from the WSJ article:

Google Inc. said it may back out of China after an investigation found the company had been hit with major cyber attacks it believes originated from the country — a move that would amount to one of the highest-profile rebukes yet of China by a major U.S. firm.

Google said it believed the attackers were trying to access the Gmail accounts of Chinese human-rights activists. It said at least 20 other large companies were also targeted and that it was in the process of notifying those companies and working with U.S. authorities.

“We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results” on its China Web site, Google.cn,” the company’s chief legal officer, David Drummond, said in the post.

“We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China,” Mr. Drummond wrote.

Even the public suggestion that it is considering such a move is likely to infuriate Chinese authorities, who couldn’t immediately be reached for comment. The government in the past has rejected accusations that China is responsible for cyber attacks against foreign entities.

Previous flashpoints

Google launched its Chinese-language search engine in 2006, agreeing to censor some of its results, a move that sparked sharp criticism from human-rights groups and Web-industry officials who are critical of any restrictions on the Internet.

In 2009 when Chinese officials reprimanded Google and accused it of having pornography on its sites, several Google services were temporarily inaccessible in China.

Google’s video-sharing site, YouTube, has also been inaccessible within China for the past number of months, and has been periodically banned in the past.

Last year, [Google] agreed to remove some foreign-language links on its China homepage to placate Chinese officials.

And from Google themselves (hat tip to Richard @ TPD, where a discussion is underway):

We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that “we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.”

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

Notice a pattern? Google are, bit by bit, badgered to kowtow to this, apologise for that, or otherwise restrict their services. If they continue it will ultimately resemble the CCP’s very own search engine model; one that restricts freedom of information and allows Beijing free access to the accounts of foreign companies, NGOs, and rights activists.

Looks like this security breach could be the straw that breaks the back of Google’s questionable and unethical yielding to Beijing’s draconian censorship measures.

Let’s hope so. In which case, come June, I might not have to revisit this criticism.

Update
James Fallows well worth a read, as ever.

Update 2

Rebecca Mackinnon talking sense in the WSJ.

Good Summary of Day 1 of Googlegate at Imagethief.